Argumentative Essay On Net Neutrality

When paying for internet the issue that comes up, is the amount of internet we are purchasing but never the speed. Net Neutrality is often referred to as Open Internet; Open Internet is the ability to use the internet in any way you want, whenever you want, and also everyone having the same speed. A new debate has come up in the Federal Communications Commissions (FCC) whether internet providers should create “fast lanes” for an extra cost or if the internet should be equal to all (CITE). Republicans and Democrats have been actively involved in the dispute. The outcome of this debate will affects the majority of Americans and their day to day lives. Net Neutrality will have positive effects on the internet and the way it functions. The first
positive affect Net Neutrality will have, is giving the user the opportunity to have the freedom of using the internet in whatever form they wish to. Meaning that broadband providers cannot block access to content that is non-harmful and legal. Secondly, it gives inventors leeway to create new services and products without set guidelines, giving inventors the opportunity to think outside the box. Thirdly, the internet will be thought as a public utility. For example, a phone line is a public utility in which everyone has equal right to it therefore it is the same for everyone. This means companies cannot pay broadband companies extra money in exchange of loading their pages quicker; by not doing this broadband companies avoid creating “fast lanes”. Net Neutrality seems to bring more positives than negatives. Many of the positive effects can also be thought as a negative, if looked through a different perspective. Giving users the freedom to use the internet can backfire on internet providers because the user may illegally download content or even do certain things such as override a mainstream company. Secondly, by giving inventors the freedom of inventing programs and services without permission it can create disputes and controversies over the services and programs they create. Thirdly, by creating “fast lanes”, users and mainstream companies will pay more for a greater allocation of speed. There is many incentives to why Net Neutrality should be in place.
One of the main ones is to stop big companies such as Comcast and Verizon Wireless from charging average Americans an outrageous amount of money to services and options they already possess. Net Neutrality would help large corporations from further monopolizing the broadband industry. If given the leeway to create “fast lanes” or throttling certain pages, companies will be able to extort money from mostly the middle class American. The World Wide Web was created to help bring in a different form of freedom of expression and speech; maintaining the internet open and neutral would aid the internet in the goal of creating a community of freedom. On the other hand, by not having Net Neutrality, the internet would become more private. By the internet not being open anymore, it eliminates large companies having access to users’ private information. It will also create a safe, more private internet for Americans to use. Without Net Neutrality, people would have to acquire special permission to create services and programs; this would stop digital content piracy and hacking. If Net Neutrality is banned then the main purpose, which is to create a community where different topics can be conversed upon, is
defeated. Hacking has been a persistent problem with large corporations such as Google Chrome, Xbox, and Safari. If the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) denies the Net Neutrality bill, they will be able to have a stronger hold on hackers therefore creating a more secure internet for future generations. When thinking about Net Neutrality there is many disadvantages and advantages, it all comes up to what is more important: security or freedom. If Net Neutrality is passed, the cost of broadband will remain the same. There will be no special price for “fast lanes” to use special services such as Netflix, Hulu, or even Facebook. Broadband companies would be able to see your daily internet activity and charge you extra for using basic internet websites. The reason many people are pushing towards the bill becoming approved is because they want the internet to become a public utility. Many years ago, the same debate happened but the issue was with telephone companies.
The debate was whether or not phone line providers should charge more for a separate line that receives calls quicker. The debate was very similar to the current one; political parties where taking opposite sides and the debate became heavily publicized. After encountering many ways of solving the debate, everyone came to the agreement to categorize phone lines as a public utility.
As society progresses, there will be an infinite amount of items and services that seem crucial for day to day lives. A public utility is defined as “A business that furnishes an everyday necessity to the public at large”, but what actually defines a necessity? A necessity is something you need to live such as water, food, and
sleep.
Is classifying telephone and internet services as a public utility correct? By changing what is classified as a public utility every couple of years, shows a weakness in the way America categorizes public utilities. Having internet in the comfort of your own is more of a want, rather than a need. There is many places where people have access to the internet. Thinking of making the internet a public utility is the biggest downfall to this argument. Only essential living items should be classified as public utilities such as water, electricity, and natural gas. This weakness correlates with Net Neutrality. The biggest argument for Net Neutrality is the want to categorize broadband services as a public utility, within the argument there is crucial flaws in how classifying a public utility should be dealt with. If there was set guidelines to the classification of public utilities the argument for Net Neutrality would strengthen.
There is many mixed reactions throughout America, whether Net Neutrality should be passed or not. Like in many other debates, the two main political parties, the Republicans and the Democrats, have taken completely opposites stances on the issue therefore making the issue difficult to solve. Not only do they affect if the legislation will pass but also the thoughts of Americans all over the country.
The Democrats are customer oriented. They want to secure the privacy of customer while still paying a reasonable amount of money. Democrats do not believe in throttling or slowing down certain pages. They have taken the side of Net Neutrality.
On the other hand, the Republicans want to regulate the internet. Meaning they want large corporations such as Comcast and Verizon to pay money for “fast lanes’. By creating “fast lanes”, customers and large corporation will all pay extra amounts of money for services that are already available to them. In this situations, the broadband provider will benefit the most from the agreement.
The trend seen within the average American population, is the approval of Net Neutrality. Americans do not have a deep understanding about Net Neutrality or the aftereffects of the FCC’s decision. Due to their lack of knowledge, Americans are guided toward the popular choice which is for Net Neutrality. If Americans understood the aftereffects of each option, there would be a more prominent disbursement between the two sides.
If Net Neutrality is not approved by the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) the speed of the internet will vary by page. Small websites created by ordinary people will load relatively slow compared to intricate websites created by large corporations. The differences in speed is caused by the creation of paid “fast lanes”. Large streaming corporations such as Hulu or Netflix would have the opportunity to pay for a certain amount of extra speed but then broadband providers will charge the customer an extra fee to have access to the “fast lane”.